Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television The Courts

Roku Disables Devices Until Users Agree To New Arbitration Rules 147

Posted by BeauHD from the not-cool dept.
ZipK writes: Cord Cutters New reports that Roku has rolled out new terms of service that require users to accept individual arbitration. To gain acceptance, Roku devices pop up a dialog box that can only be dismissed if you accept the new terms or turn off your Roku and stop using it. As expected, much discussion has ensued in the Roku community.

Per the Roku Dispute Resolution Terms, users can opt out within 30 days of being subject to the new terms by sending a surface mail request to General Counsel, Roku Inc., 1701 Junction Court, Suite 100, San Jose, CA 95112. One poster in the community forum noted that the effective date of the change was Feb 20th, which may shorten the 30 day period for opting out. Longtime Slashdot reader blastard also shared the news.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Roku Disables Devices Until Users Agree To New Arbitration Rules More

Roku Disables Devices Until Users Agree To New Arbitration Rules

Comments Filter:

  • So if it's built into a TV??? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Fly Swatter ( 30498 ) on Monday March 04, 2024 @05:55PM (#64289652) Homepage
    That's a really big e-waste. They should be offering users their purchase price back.
    • They should pay to pack up and pick up the sets.
      • Many countries have mandatory statutory rights, unfair contract in consumer law, and computer tampering offences, and disabling something would trigger it. Plus a minor who caused the disablement - the owner must have a remedy. IANAL but maybe some well funded test cases. In any case one assumes a workaround will surface. I think NZ would allow a full at retailer refund.

    • Wow, I usually use HDMI on the mediocre TV with Roku, though the Roku media player is useful for USB.

      Probably worth a stamp to see if I can get the purchase price and disposal fee refunded.

    • Re:So if it's built into a TV??? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday March 05, 2024 @05:11AM (#64290658) Homepage Journal

      In Europe you likely can get a (partial) refund.

      Rules vary from country to country, but for example in the UK goods must last a "reasonable length of time", which for TVs is typically 6 years based on what courts tend to rule.

      There was an example some years ago where someone bought a Playstation 3 from Amazon, and Sony removed the ability to run Linux due to piracy fears. He got a partial refund based on how long he had owned it and how long it would reasonably be expected to last.

      If they brick your TV because you can't agree to arbitration, get your money back.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by e3m4n ( 947977 )
      Roku licensed the software to the tv manufacturer, so your lawsuit, if any, would be with the TV maker anyway. There would not be any arbitration with roku on a TCL RokuTV. So agreeing would be pointless for all parties.
  • I, at least, will not accept such a requirement, I can get entertainment many other places than Roku.

    • Re:well, sounds like Roku is planning on dying (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SoCalChris ( 573049 ) on Monday March 04, 2024 @06:55PM (#64289814) Journal

      Which is great, until you get a big popup that won't let you do anything with your Roku until you click accept.

      Which is what I had this weekend, on both of my devices, without any warning.

      • How long ago did you purchase? I'd be disputing the charge on my card if it was within 120 days.

      • Re: well, sounds like Roku is planning on dying (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fintux ( 798480 ) on Tuesday March 05, 2024 @02:31AM (#64290476)
        Can clicking a button really be considered a digital signature in the US? What if a dog or a toddler clicks on the button without the adult even ever knowing that? How can they prove that you, the owner of the device, actually consented to the terms?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by e3m4n ( 947977 )
          Just because you agree doesnt mean its enforceable. Many judges have ruled that one cannot simply waive their rights away. You can waive your right to a jury trial and yet later change your mind I believe. Its just lawyers doing the typical lawyer bullying. But TBH, youre out at most a $90 device. Unless, of course, it is embedded into the tv. So not sure how a class action over a $90 device helps anyone but a lawyer. As far as the TV, only a few are actually made by roku, so you can still sue their manufac

  • Agree or we brick your device (Score:5, Insightful)

    by penguinoid ( 724646 ) on Monday March 04, 2024 @05:58PM (#64289662) Homepage Journal

    This shouldn't be enforceable.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Binding arbitration should be unconscionable, but the courts don't agree with me.
      • Well, to be fair, I hear the courts aren't really involved anymore. They signed their own binding arbitration agreement a few years back.

      • Binding arbitration is inherently biased towards whoever has the most money. Which to be fair is often the bias of the courts. The reasons companies what binding arbitration is that they know they will win more often than if they went to the courts; the cost of courts is only a minor part of the reason.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rgmoore ( 133276 )
        The problem with binding arbitration isn't the process; it's the disparity in power. If Roku wants to agree with its network provider that they'll settle contract disputes through binding arbitration, that's fine. What's not fine is Roku telling their customers that they're unilaterally changing to binding arbitration and the customer has no say in the matter. "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." is a sign that the deal is not agreed to through fair negotiation.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by taustin ( 171655 )

        The presence of such a clause should automatically qualify for punitive damages in the event the company is found liable, of at least 100 times the actual damages.

        But the courts don't agree with me, either.

    • Re:Agree or we brick your device (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nightflameauto ( 6607976 ) on Monday March 04, 2024 @06:20PM (#64289726)

      This shouldn't be enforceable.

      It's not a question of whether or not it's enforceable. The question is "will any one user raise enough of a stink to cause financial impact on the company?" That answer, when run through a pack of lawyers that stand to make millions if they end up in court over it, is always, "No, sir. Not at all." And here we are.

      Kinda sad though. Because every time a streaming device ups the ante on aggression toward users Roku is mentioned as a better alternative. I guess user goodwill is worthless even to Roku now.

      • $ROKU is a publicly traded company, user goodwill is gonna have 0 input if the general counsel comes down with a "you have to do this"

        • $ROKU is a publicly traded company, user goodwill is gonna have 0 input if the general counsel comes down with a "you have to do this"

          There should be someone involved in legal that is able to voice the opinion that forcing people to accept new terms on devices they already purchased will cause a backlash among the userbase. I mean, I know that end-users are essentially seen as chattel to be tolerated and abused at will, but at some point you have to please the customer or they will no longer be customers. And believe it or not, purchased devices need customers. A concept that seems to have fallen completely out of favor in the tech sector

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by sodul ( 833177 )

            About 20y ago I joined a famous (at the time) company that made handheld devices. A few days in the company I attended a presentation on an upcoming portable device with a physical spinning hard drive that could play music and videos. The problem is that the drives were meant for laptops and a very high percentage (something like 50%) of the drives would fail within 12 month. The solution: have the drive manufacturers share some of the costs of replacing the drives under warranty, but beyond the 12 months,

          • will cause a backlash among the userbase.

            Will it? 99% of users won't care about this, and 99% of the other 1% won't care enough to do anything about it.

            I have a TV with Roku. I sorta half remember a popup a few days ago, but I always click those without reading them since I know that whatever I'm agreeing to will have zero impact on my life.

            • This would appear to be holding the customer's device hostage to coerce them into a contract.

              • This would appear to be holding the customer's device hostage to coerce them into a contract.

                A customer would only know that if they read the popup before clicking. Who does that?

                And the "contract" means nothing to 99.999% of users who will never sue Roku.

                For the other 0.001%, they can easily claim that a click on a remote by some random person in their household (perhaps a minor child) is not legally binding.

          • Pleasing the customer isn't really the legal department's concern though.

          • For sure legal absolutely is involved with reactions to things but at the same time they are one of the divisions that can say "this is happening or we're in an even bigger heap of shit" and it's gonna happen.

    • Re:Agree or we brick your device (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Fly Swatter ( 30498 ) on Monday March 04, 2024 @06:24PM (#64289746) Homepage
      No, this should be outright illegal. This is open hostility to the owner of physical equipment, not a threat of discontinuing a subscription service.

      It is destruction of personal property, or at least vandalism. Forget right to repair, now we need right to use. :(

      • Re:Agree or we brick your device (Score:5, Insightful)

        by LainTouko ( 926420 ) on Monday March 04, 2024 @07:31PM (#64289890)
        It is outright illegal, at least where I am. The problem is that the police don't investigate these kinds of crimes. In a capitalist state, the police first and foremost serve the interests of capital.

        • Re:Agree or we brick your device (Score:4, Informative)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday March 05, 2024 @05:15AM (#64290662) Homepage Journal

          It would be a civil matter in most jurisdictions, not a criminal one. You are supposed to take them to court.

          In the UK you would use Small Claims Court. First step would be to ask the shop you bought it from to fix it or refund your money. If they refuse, then you send a Letter Before Action to give them a final opportunity to make it right, and finally use Small Claims Court to get the money.

          You wouldn't go after the manufacturer, your claim is against the retailer as they are responsibly for the quality and durability of what they sell. Your jurisdiction may be different.

          • That's correct. If you swipe a candy bar from the convenience store you can get a year in jail, but sabotaging thousands of televisions is a civil matter. If you're going to steal from people at scale it's always better to incorporate first.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              If consumers exercised their rights it would probably fix most of this problem.

              In the UK we had a big scandal with mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance (PPI), and in the end it was pretty much a case of submit a claim by email and they just paid out. No court needed, because the regulator ruled that it was basically all mis-sold and they knew they would lose. Now the same thing is happening with car finance.

              If we could do the same for a popular product that got downgraded by an update after purchase, with

        • It is outright illegal, at least where I am.

          No. It is definitely legal where you live. I don't see any officials from your jurisdiction doing anything about the situation. A law that is unenforced is not really a law is it?

      • No it isn't. You can still use the property for any purpose that doesn't involve the licensed software and service from Roku.

        I have a 2010 TV from Sharp. Last I checked, none of the built in services still work (not that I use them anyway). Should I be able to successfully demand a refund? No.

        • Behold! Here we have another idiot that cannot tell the difference between a service shutting down and company actively destroying the property of others.

          Of course, I say they cannot tell the difference, in all likelihood they just want the ability to do the same to you and your property themselves.

          • Behold! Here we have another idiot that cannot tell the difference between a service shutting down and company actively destroying the property of others.

            a). It's a distinction without a difference.

            b). At least one of the services, Netflix, is still in business. However, the "built in" Netflix on the TV will no longer work.

      • No, this should be outright illegal. This is open hostility to the owner of physical equipment, not a threat of discontinuing a subscription service.

        One sided changes to contracts are unenforceable in many countries (not the USA though as far as I am aware). If they attempted to suddenly insert a binding arbitration clause in an EU contract where it wasn't before, then that clause would not be valid.

      • I don't recall you getting upset when Facebook did this to Occulus hardware. That should have been outright illegal too; however, it seems to keep happening more and more.

    • At the very least they should make it similar to what they have been doing with subscription services. Make it as easy to end a subscription as it is to start a subscription. If I can consent to forced arbitration from their damn popup window I should also be able to opt out from the same damn popup.

    • It's probably only enforcable in the US.

    • There are thousands of devices that I control for work. I directly asked Enterprise Support how this kind of extortion is even legal as they will cripple your MDM instances if you do not agree to whatever ToS changes they make. I got no answer.

      • There are thousands of devices that I control for work. I directly asked Enterprise Support how this kind of extortion is even legal as they will cripple your MDM instances if you do not agree to whatever ToS changes they make. I got no answer.

        Prove it.

        Provide a link to the TOS or it didn't happen.

        Are you Sure it's Apple, and not Jamf or another third-party?

    • We iz kontrol you device now. You no TV watch till youz agreez.

    • This shouldn't be enforceable.

      Facebook did it to my Occulus. Nothing and nobody stopped them. Your Roku will be taken from you AFTER you have paid for it. Feels nice doesn't it?

      If we had a functioning legal system, Facebook would have been slapped HARD for denying me use of my fucking hardware. But no, we live in an evil hellscape where the individual does not matter despite the founding documents making the entire country about the individual. Did the communists from the 1950s win?

  • If they will fully refund my purchase, including the whole price of the tv+shipping+tax if I don't agree then I'd be ok with this.

    Well, not ok, per se, but I think it would pass legal muster.

    But "agree to new terms or we brick your purchased device"? No. Complete bullshit.

    "That's a nice tv you got there, it would be a shame if anything happened to it".

  • Void (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward

    In any jurisdiction with sane consumer laws, you can agree to this in the knowledge that your agreement means nothing, since coercing the agreement under pain of deactivating your paid for device is legally void.

  • take it back to the store for an full refund!

  • In my view, this is a clever maneuver by Roku's legal counsel to immunize the company from class action suits. While class actions are not very lucrative for individual consumers, they can be quite expensive for the company. What makes this maneuver clever (from a legal perspective) is that Roku is making it super-simple to waive your right to participate in a class action, but relatively difficult (mailing a physical letter) to maintain your right to do so. What this does is reduces the size of the class,

  • Probably because of their stick disaster (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Monday March 04, 2024 @06:50PM (#64289804) Homepage Journal

    Every Roku streaming stick I or my parents own started misbehaving about a year ago, with Netflix getting slower and slower until you have to power off the device and back on again to get it to respond to button presses. (I've seen this on three different Roku stick devices of significantly different vintages, so this is unlikely to be a fluke.) I'd imagine Roku suspects that they're about to get hit with the biggest class action lawsuit in the history of the company, and they're doing this deliberately to try to prevent it.

    Unfortunately for Roku, that strategy is unlikely to work, because the harm has already been done, and the courts are likely to take a dim view of a coerced binding arbitration clause that applies retroactively, and may well throw some treble damages in just for trying such a stunt.

    I would encourage anyone experiencing these problems to refuse to agree to the new terms and to explicitly opt out of binding arbitration.

    • Every Roku streaming stick I or my parents own started misbehaving about a year ago, with Netflix getting slower and slower until you have to power off the device and back on again to get it to respond to button presses. (I've seen this on three different Roku stick devices of significantly different vintages, so this is unlikely to be a fluke.) I'd imagine Roku suspects that they're about to get hit with the biggest class action lawsuit in the history of the company, and they're doing this deliberately to try to prevent it.

      Unfortunately for Roku, that strategy is unlikely to work, because the harm has already been done, and the courts are likely to take a dim view of a coerced binding arbitration clause that applies retroactively, and may well throw some treble damages in just for trying such a stunt.

      I would encourage anyone experiencing these problems to refuse to agree to the new terms and to explicitly opt out of binding arbitration.

      The first sounds like a memory leak. A sure sign of a shit Application

      And tes, EVERYONE (not nust Rolu Owners) need to FLOOD Roku witbvtge Opt-Out Letters.

  • How isn't this Criminal Tampering? (Score:3)

    by laughingskeptic ( 1004414 ) on Monday March 04, 2024 @06:58PM (#64289824)
    Criminal Tampering (Texas Penal Code Section 28.04): Criminal Tampering involves intentionally damaging or destroying tangible property without the owner's effective consent. While this offense might not always directly involve coercion, if the tampering is done with the intent to interfere with the victim's use of the equipment until they comply with the assailant's demands, it could be relevant.

    • Criminal Tampering (Texas Penal Code Section 28.04):

      LOL. That is law that for YOU. Not for a business. Go ahead, talk to your officials. Let me know if they even talk to you. I already know they won't enforce that law against a business.

  • Class Action Lawsuit should be available, right?

    And I would suggest that any terms of service that changes functionality AFTER purchase is not a legal contract, as there is no option to negotiate. Terms of Service changes that take consumers' rights away should be null and void, IMHO

  • My Four-year-old .... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Monday March 04, 2024 @07:21PM (#64289868)

    ... wanted to watch Donkey Hodie. So he clicked the "Accept" button.

  • Making property less useful, and so certainly making somebody's television non-functional is definitely criminal damage under UK law, and there's no way any of the potential lawful excuses apply, I'm sure it's similarly illegal under the law of many other countries. It shouldn't be the responsibility of users to sue or anything like that, it should be the responsibility of police and prosecutors to put the perpetrators of thousands or millions of cases of vandalism behind bars. Working for a corporation is

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ukoda ( 537183 )
      I think you will find that most of the affect people are in the USA where they have crap consumer laws and are used this kind of abuse. That shit wouldn't fly here in New Zealand either. When you look at things in the USA, with all their talk about 'freedom' and 'equality', it would seem that does not apply to power of their corporation over their citizens.
      • Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner folks!

        Yes, sir. In the USA, freedom is only for corporations. If the public still has any, don't worry. The companies and their bribed politicians are hard at work to claw that freedom back and put it where it belongs: In the hands of USA shareholders.

        For those waiting for an '/s', sorry. The USA has long been putting "the right to steal the rights of others via contract" well above the other rights.

  • a shit company that treats customers like shit and this is just the latest example. I randomly got an email from them a few days ago, I didn't even know I still had an account. I logged in and deleted it. Glad I did.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ukoda ( 537183 )
      I can do one better. I looked at Roku as it was talked about so much and didn't like what I saw, so never brought one. Looks like that was the right call.

  • I use a Raspberry Pi for a lot of streaming. I did recently decide to try out a Chromecast as well mostly because it was $30, offers some convenience, and if it fails, I still have the Pi for streaming.

    No need for a subscription just to use the hardware. Naturally, many streaming sources do require a subscription, but there are many of them to choose from without having to buy new hardware.

  • Imagine a car company doing this? Engine won't start unless you agree to new TOS.

    • It will happen ... eventually. No need to imagine.

  • I have a 10-year-old Roku 2 that still works perfectly fine. It's officially unsupported, which apparently means no popup for me. :)

  • This is one of a thousand reasons I never use commercial STB firmware in a commercial TV or set top box.
    I have no interest in allowing someone that much control over my hardware.
    I use external devices running general purpose operating systems that use freely available software that I can swap out if or when needed.
    I don't want someone's software holding my hardware for ransom, full stop.
  • People whose devices are bricked should talk to a lawyer. If you are bricked you obviously did not agree to arbitration, so should have excellent grounds for a lawsuit. Indeed, if you have an old Roku you don't use, let them brick it so you can be part of the class one day.
  • I got some good deals on two TVs but unfortunately they are all smart TVs. I thought I was picking the better system going with Roku over FireTV. It appears they are both equally bad. My TVs are disconnected from the Internet as I prefer to use device boxes instead. They can be replaced if manufacturers pull this stunt.

  • They're holding your property hostage to get you to do something. That's extortion. Have them arrested.

  • And then never connect it to the Internet. My TV is only connected to Wi-Fi so I can turn it on and off through my HA server. No Internet access for any of the devices that some marketing team can brick.

    • And then never connect it to the Internet. My TV is only connected to Wi-Fi so I can turn it on and off through my HA server. No Internet access for any of the devices that some marketing team can brick.

      That doesn't really work when the device exists to stream video from the internet.

  • Everyone is counting all your clicks, so your click is a vote showing your interest. I suggest you click on Roku's Dispute Resolution Terms in the Slashdot article above to show your interest.
  • Maybe a cheap laptop off eBay and just use a web browser and inexpensive wireless keyboard to access streaming services. Would be more useful than a Roku box.

    • Unless you live alone, what would you use to display the output of this cheap eBay laptop? You can't easily fit multiple people around a laptop's built-in monitor, and materially all living-room-sized displays sold in major retailers include Roku or another Internet-connected TV operating system. I'm aware that digital signage displays exist, at a severe price premium compared to Internet-connected TVs of the same size. How would I go about convincing others that forgoing Internet connection is a feature wo

  • ....with corporations hating on their consumers and actively trying to drive them away?!

    Roku just joined a rapidly growing list of companies that won't be seeing any of my cash. So... mission accomplished, I guess?

    • ....with corporations hating on their consumers and actively trying to drive them away?!

      What is up, with the 99.9% of consumers who will blindly Agree to this just like they have every other EULA and pop-up agreement?

      Roku isn’t driving anyone away other than the pre-calculated consumers who give a shit enough to do more than bitch about it, with the added benefit of never having to pay a consumer class-action settlement again.

      Roku just joined a rapidly growing list of companies that won't be seeing any of my cash. So... mission accomplished, I guess?

      I’m reminded of when Bud Light chose to craft a certain custom-made can for a certain custom-made influencer resulting in a massive boycott. Problem is the a

  • Any person can solve this problem for themselves, individually, with full effect:
    - add the manufacturer and all its products and services into a personal perpetual denylist
    - inform and tell family, friends and coworkers about this bad manufacturer
    - erase anything on the device that could survive a factory reset
    - perform a full factory reset on device
    - perform the minimum, bare-bones setup of the device with a secondary email or throwaway account
    - agree to all terms, install all updates, clean and polish the

    • I find many of the steps you list to be much easier said than done.

      add the manufacturer and all its products and services into a personal perpetual denylist

      Once I have placed all major publishers of operating systems for Internet-connected TVs "into a personal perpetual denylist", then from whom should I buy a display sized for a living room? And once I have put both Google and Apple "into a personal perpetual denylist" over Google TV and Apple TV, then from whom should I buy a personal mobile phone?

      perform a full factory reset on device

      How does one select a full factory reset without clicking through the full-screen prompt to waiv

      • First question:
        If you "have placed all major publishers of operating systems for Internet-connected TVs "into a personal perpetual denylist"" and there are none left on the market, what are the options?

        You might
        - buy from a MINOR publisher of operating systems for Internet-connected TVs
        - buy NO operating system for Internet-connected TVs, i.e. you buy no Internet-connected TV
        - buy or combine two products for a viable alternative / substitute

        For Internet-connected TVs, this is a very easy and straightforward

  • Well, haven't used my Roku in years and checked last year and all free content is now pay walled. Unplugged it, screw their TOS. I never thought it was a good idea to buy a Roku branded TV. If it doesn't update, it's worthless. Had a TV with builtin browser. Turns out, it was a very limited browser in what you could do and you couldn't upgrade it. That's why I stick to name brand TV's, the dumb version.

    • That's why I stick to name brand TV's, the dumb version.

      Last I checked, all TVs in living room sizes (as opposed to desktop computer monitors) came with streaming capability. They do this because the kickbacks to preinstall the apps of major subscription video on demand providers outweigh the extra cost of streaming hardware to the point where the manufacturer can actually reduce the sticker price. What name brand dumb TVs are you buying that don't have Roku, Amazon, Google, or some other streaming OS? (Location: USA)

  • I received an email from Roku that says:

    We wanted to let you know that we have made changes to our Dispute Resolution Terms, which describe how you can resolve disputes with Roku. We encourage you to read the updated Dispute Resolution Terms. By continuing to use our products or services, you are agreeing to these updated terms. Thank you for making Roku part of your entertainment experience. The Roku Team
  • This amounts to extortion. Basically thru are saying accept or you can't use the hardware you paid for. Extortion is a federal crime. I encourage everyone with a Roku to contact Roku's legal council: Stephen Jay 1701 Junction Court Suite 100 San Jose, CA 95112 Email: generalcounsel@roku.com Phone: 408-556-9391 Fax: 408-364-1260 Tell him you will be contacting the FBI and the news media about this extortion attempt by Roku. I already did!

  • Every day I'm happier I'm just sticking with my 15-year-old Sony. Nice and stupid. It does broadcast reception and video inputs, and that's it, and that's all I want it to do.

Slashdot Top Deals

Crazee Edeee, his prices are INSANE!!!

Close